I can't imagine any landscape photographer would want a 46.1Mp tool with diffraction limit starting at f/5.6 already.

"starting at" is the key... AFAIK other than very large prints it may not really start to be visible until much smaller apertures. Neuro or Jrista can tell us more I'm sure. But fair point, for serious landscape medium format would still be leaps and bounds ahead.

If Canon releases such a high MP camera, then price will be one of the major factors accountable for its success. It does not look like an "upgrade" cam for 5DMKIII as it will appeal to a limited market (landscapes and studio shooters), so it will not be in any real direct competition with 5DMKIII (all around workhorse and event photography choice). That means that price of one will not cannibalize the price of the other, basically meaning the price of the high MP cam could be quite reasonable. Another fact to factor in - D800. If Canon's high MP cam is priced too high (as some suggesting over $5K) then it will be cheaper to get D800 and a couple of decent lenses and run a two system setup. I would keep my Canon glass for my current Canon body for event photography (I might grab 5DMKIII in a year or so if the price becomes reasonable) and get D800 with a lens or two for studio and landscapes. Considering both systems have their advantages that might be the most logical way to go. The irony of Canon's policy to overprice its products... Of course, if the price is at least somewhat reasonable then Canon's high MP cam becomes a more attractive choice as I already have the glass... Life will tell...

I can't imagine any landscape photographer would want a 46.1Mp tool with diffraction limit starting at f/5.6 already.

"starting at" is the key... AFAIK other than very large prints it may not really start to be visible until much smaller apertures. Neuro or Jrista can tell us more I'm sure. But fair point, for serious landscape medium format would still be leaps and bounds ahead.

Here to save the day!! ;P

Actually, diffraction starts at f/6.9 (same as 7D, which actually has the same pixel pitch as a 47.6mp sensor...so a 46.1mp sensor would probably actually have a DLA of f/7.1 or so). And the diffraction limit is simply the point at which the airy pattern (vs. the airy disc, which is the central peak) STARTS to affect surrounding pixels. The outer region of an airy pattern is generally a far lower intensity than the central airy disc. You can keep stopping down beyond the DLA, as it would be a couple stops before the airy disc becomes large enough to affect more than a single pixel and exhibits as detail-eating diffraction softening.

You also have to keep in mind...a sensor with smaller pixels will only experience diminishing returns beyond the DLA. Once diffraction starts affecting resolution, that does not mean that your awesome 46.1mp sensor will have WORSE quality than a lower-resolution sensor. Simple fact is a lower-resolution sensor is physically incapable of resolving as much detail as a higher resolution sensor...always. In the absolute worst case scenario, say f/22 or f/32...or f/64, a 46.1mp sensor will only ever produce images "as bad" as a lower resolution sensor. A higher resolution sensor will never produce images that are "worse" than a lower resolution sensor (from a resolution standpoint...noise is a different aspect of IQ, and out of context here.)

Until you reach the diffraction cutoff frequency (the point at which pixel size is the same size or smaller than the wavelengths of light), you can continue extracting more detail with higher resolution sensors. As such, a 46.1mp sensor will always be better than a lower resolution sensor, regardless of the aperture used. Even at f/8, f/11, f/16 for landscapes...a 46.1mp sensor is going to keep extracting more detail...even if its minimally more, its still going to be more than say a 36mp sensor, a 22mp sensor, an 18mp sensor.

I can't imagine any landscape photographer would want a 46.1Mp tool with diffraction limit starting at f/5.6 already.

Finally Canon feel pressures from Nikon. I believe not only landscape photographer want to get this camera. Even I taking pictures only for family want to get one if the price is below 5K. However, I will skip this generation since I already got my 5D3.

I can't imagine any landscape photographer would want a 46.1Mp tool with diffraction limit starting at f/5.6 already.

"starting at" is the key... AFAIK other than very large prints it may not really start to be visible until much smaller apertures. Neuro or Jrista can tell us more I'm sure. But fair point, for serious landscape medium format would still be leaps and bounds ahead.

Here to save the day!! ;P

Actually, diffraction starts at f/6.9 (same as 7D, which actually has the same pixel pitch as a 47.6mp sensor...so a 46.1mp sensor would probably actually have a DLA of f/7.1 or so). And the diffraction limit is simply the point at which the airy pattern (vs. the airy disc, which is the central peak) STARTS to affect surrounding pixels. The outer region of an airy pattern is generally a far lower intensity than the central airy disc. You can keep stopping down beyond the DLA, as it would be a couple stops before the airy disc becomes large enough to affect more than a single pixel and exhibits as detail-eating diffraction softening.

Actually, the easier solution is just to use a wide angle lens, because as we all know, wide angle lenses have a deeper DoF, and so are not affected as much by diffraction.

...and yes, I know the above is complete BS, but I figure why not start anouther argument, since really, this is a CR1 rumor, and we're still left with 'Canon either will or will not release a high MP body in the near or distant future'...

I can't imagine any landscape photographer would want a 46.1Mp tool with diffraction limit starting at f/5.6 already.

"starting at" is the key... AFAIK other than very large prints it may not really start to be visible until much smaller apertures. Neuro or Jrista can tell us more I'm sure. But fair point, for serious landscape medium format would still be leaps and bounds ahead.

Here to save the day!! ;P

Actually, diffraction starts at f/6.9 (same as 7D, which actually has the same pixel pitch as a 47.6mp sensor...so a 46.1mp sensor would probably actually have a DLA of f/7.1 or so). And the diffraction limit is simply the point at which the airy pattern (vs. the airy disc, which is the central peak) STARTS to affect surrounding pixels. The outer region of an airy pattern is generally a far lower intensity than the central airy disc. You can keep stopping down beyond the DLA, as it would be a couple stops before the airy disc becomes large enough to affect more than a single pixel and exhibits as detail-eating diffraction softening.

Actually, the easier solution is just to use a wide angle lens, because as we all know, wide angle lenses have a deeper DoF, and so are not affected as much by diffraction.

...and yes, I know the above is complete BS, but I figure why not start anouther argument, since really, this is a CR1 rumor, and we're still left with 'Canon either will or will not release a high MP body in the near or distant future'...

LOL. Sorry, I updated my answer when you were quoting it.

I liked your original idea....for Canon to release more TS-E lenses. I would love to have a full range of TS-E lenses with the same kind of IQ as the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II. I like the 17 and 24, but a 35mm would be nice as well.

I can't imagine any landscape photographer would want a 46.1Mp tool with diffraction limit starting at f/5.6 already.

"starting at" is the key... AFAIK other than very large prints it may not really start to be visible until much smaller apertures. Neuro or Jrista can tell us more I'm sure. But fair point, for serious landscape medium format would still be leaps and bounds ahead.

Here to save the day!! ;P

Actually, diffraction starts at f/6.9 (same as 7D, which actually has the same pixel pitch as a 47.6mp sensor...so a 46.1mp sensor would probably actually have a DLA of f/7.1 or so). And the diffraction limit is simply the point at which the airy pattern (vs. the airy disc, which is the central peak) STARTS to affect surrounding pixels. The outer region of an airy pattern is generally a far lower intensity than the central airy disc. You can keep stopping down beyond the DLA, as it would be a couple stops before the airy disc becomes large enough to affect more than a single pixel and exhibits as detail-eating diffraction softening.

Actually, the easier solution is just to use a wide angle lens, because as we all know, wide angle lenses have a deeper DoF, and so are not affected as much by diffraction.

...and yes, I know the above is complete BS, but I figure why not start anouther argument, since really, this is a CR1 rumor, and we're still left with 'Canon either will or will not release a high MP body in the near or distant future'...

I can't imagine any landscape photographer would want a 46.1Mp tool with diffraction limit starting at f/5.6 already.

So...maybe they announce more TS-E lenses to get around the diffraction limits with tilt...

I'm a landscape guy that shoots D800 and D800E and in my real world testing I limit most of my shots to F14. At F16 the sharpness change becomes noticible. I do use the Nikon 24 TSE which I'm not that pleased with. I miss the Canon 17 and 24 TSE lenses which are great. If Canon can make and DELIVER a true 40+ MP camera (not like the Nokia way of counting) I will buy it (assuming it is less that 10k). I was going to put in a few other things I would like to see for the money like 1D Body (I always buy the grip anyway), better dynamic range (like the D800 - I love it) but my mind is blank.

From what I've learned about 36MP with the D800, the diffraction point is actually higher than the vendor states in actual outdoor settings. I really need to shoot around F11 so whatever Canon needs to do to make this happen, I hope they do it (but I still will buy whatever 40MP+ camera they make). I want to use my Canon lenses again. My Canon 5D3 sits in the bag most of the time until twilight. While I think that Canon has had this capability for some time, I wonder why they let Nikon have the market this long (this last 6 months) without actual products to counter with - why did they wait? (too busy with their cinema cameras?) Well who knows... Since we waited over a year for the super tels to become available who knows this time. I was VERY impressed that within a week after the Nikon D600 was announced, we had pictures of Nikon D600 boxes sitting at retailers - imagine - new cameras waiting for a good home and then, even multiple ones at retailers. I didn't buy one because I have the D800 but if I wanted one I could just buy it. Imagine....